Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

[Guest trex]

Tories 'bring back' death penalty for Canadians abroad

OTTAWA - The Conservative government's announcement that it will no longer stand up for Canadians who face the death penalty in the United States is drawing fire from the opposition.

The Tories officially announced a change in Canada's foreign policy when it comes to Canadians on death row.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said his government will not plead for the life of Alberta-born Ronald Allen Smith, who faces lethal injection in Montana for the 1982 murder of two men.

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," Day told the House of Commons on Thursday.

"It would send a wrong message. We want to preserve public safety here in Canada."

Canada has not had a state-sanctioned execution since 1962, and the federal government has habitually opposed the death penalty abroad in cases involving Canadians.

Having simply assumed that Canada's policy would continue, employees at the Department of Foreign Affairs indicated last week that they would seek to have Smith's sentence commuted.

But they were publicly corrected by their new political bosses on Thursday.

Liberals say the policy shift is indicative of the Conservatives' eye-for-an-eye mentality on law and order.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague accuses them of giving tacit approval to capital punishment because they believe in it.

"Foreign policy is always a mirror of our domestic values," McTeague said. "Here's the ideologues in the Conservative party trying to do indirectly that which they cannot do directly - which is capital punishment by proxy.

"(We must) expose for Canadians the ideological bent of this party, which is an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth mentality. That's completely inconsistent with where Canadians have been on this issue."

Canada-U.S. differences on capital punishment became a political flashpoint with the case of Stanley Faulder.

The Alberta man was executed in 1999, despite the Chretien administration's multiple attempts to change the mind of then-Texas governor George W. Bush.

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler - the former justice minister - pointed out the inherent irony in the new Tory policy.

Canadian law prohibits the extradition of an American citizen back to the U.S. when facing the death penalty. But the government will now remain silent while Canadians are executed down south.

"Why would we now refuse to intervene to protect a Canadian citizen sentenced to death in an American state - thereby effectively reinstating capital punishment for Canadians?" Cotler asked Day.

"Are we going to change our extradition law as well as changing our policy on capital punishment?"

In Canada, a 1967 bill placed a moratorium on the death penalty, except in cases involving the murder of a law-enforcement officer.

A bill to officially ban the death penalty passed in a free vote in 1976.

A free vote on reinstating the death penalty was held in the House of Commons in 1987. MPs agreed by a 21-vote margin to maintain the abolition of capital punishment.

------

Yeah the Cons, bringing back the bad old days. Hope its yet another nail in their political coffin. The removal of these goons from government can come none too soon.

[scribblet]

The tories are not 'bringing back the death penalty' anywhere, they are simply not going to go to bat for convicted murderers.

[Moxie]

The tories are not 'bringing back the death penalty' anywhere, they are simply not going to go to bat for convicted murderers.

I couldn't of said it better myself, so I shant.

[noahbody]

The Liberals just see Smith as one more vote.

[Moxie]

The Liberals just see Smith as one more vote.

LOL they are getting positivley manic in the House of Commons, watching Dion try and comprise a sentence in English over the lian Brian thang was painful. He's a poor spoke person for the left, at this rate the liberals are ensuring the Cons will win a majority.

[capricorn]

The Liberals will latch on to anything these days in an attempt to create a crisis from nothing. "Bringing back the death penalty" my foot. And the more inflammatory the claim the better. Apart from looking like fools, the bureaucrats groomed for years by the Liberals got a swift kick in the pants.

I bet Foreign Affairs bureaucrats are in a real snit because they were given a message that they don't control government policy. They obviously jumped the gun on announcing they would plead Smith's case as reported in this Oct. 27 article.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....422&k=39442

Speaking of jumping the gun, foreign affairs bureaucrats did just that on this same case back in late 2004 under the Liberals. From the same article:

"Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana, has described how Canadian authorities began pressuring him "before I was even sworn in" to commute the death sentence of Ronald A. Smith, a convicted double-murderer from Red Deer and the only Canadian citizen on death row in the U.S.

---

"It is the policy of the government of Canada to seek clemency, on humanitarian grounds, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries," added Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Catherine Gagnaire. "Consular officials are actively monitoring this case and maintain regular contact with Mr. Smith and his legal counsel."

Why didn't those bureaucrats give a heads up to powers that be that this matter was to become an issue? There's only one answer. They think they're still running the show.

[Guest trex]

You folks got to think of the big picture sometimes, not just the immediate story in front of our noses.

For example does this also mean, that when Canadians are sentenced to death in countries such as in various parts of Asia or the Middle East, where for example people are killed for suspected drug crimes, that Canada will no longer try to intervene on their behalf either? Even the United States would try to help its own citizens elsewhere under such circumstances.

[maldon_road]

"Why would we now refuse to intervene to protect a Canadian citizen sentenced to death in an American state - thereby effectively reinstating capital punishment for Canadians?" Cotler asked Day.

Absurd. And Irwin Cotler should know better. If he commits murder in a US state the laws of that state, not Canadian law, apply. It's not the role of the Canadian government to interfer in the justice system in the US.

[Rue]

The problem with telling another country they need to send back Canadians who murder their citizens so we can place them in our jails and presumably let them free since we do that sort of thing after 2,5 to 5 years for good behaviour since our prisons are jam packed and we have no space for anyone is that its a tad preumptious telling other countries what to do. Put it in reverse do you want China demanding we send back the Dalai Lama now that he's Canadian? Where do you draw the line lecturing other countries? If you lecture them they are going to expect repciprocity-that is how the real world works, you gimmee mine back I have to exchange yours.

The problem is some of us genuinely believe they think there is one ideal standard-the Canadian one, and everyone else is a savage who should aspire to follow our moral standards and so assume we can impose our beliefs on others like the idiot missionaries we used to be in the past before we ran out of savages to save.

Do I favour capital punishment? Not necessarily but what I am willing to concede is from a practical point of view all Harper has done is acknowledge reality not do anything new. I mean if it will make the next government happy to go back to lecturing and acting upset and caring, bully for them but nothing will change. Its called sovereignty. Unless a country decides for itself whether it will or will not deport all we can do is ask and I think asking say to send back less serious criminals is one thing, murderers, major drug traffickers, pedophiles, terrorists,welll it gets a tad complicated. I appreciate some of you want to take an active role but there's limits to where that goes and noty everyone out there shares this view.

As for the terrorist whose rights were violated I appreciate rules of law. I do. Its just I also am realistic-no American will ever send the terrorist back and quite frankly what would we do with him? Put him in jail for life? Besides Bernardo have we ever done that? Oh Wait Clifford Olson is he still there? Anyone think Mr. Bernardo won't be released later on? Never you say. Don't bet on it.Some day someone will assure us they can put an implant in his brain and its easier to watch him from his home and we can zap him through the implant if he gets a boner. Think I am cazy? Wait for it. The implant advocates are furiously working away at it. They will present it as the new panacea for controlling bad guys. Just a matter of time. Then we can blur the definition of bad guy and get to the point where we all get zapped all in the name of humanity of course. After all it was the right thing to do. It was the moral thing to do. We didn't want to use undue force.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Rue

[Wilber]

Canadian law prohibits the extradition of an American citizen back to the U.S. when facing the death penalty.

I wonder how they will reconcile refusing to send an American back who faces the death penalty with not going to bat for a Canadian who faces it.

[old_bold&cold]

You folks got to think of the big picture sometimes, not just the immediate story in front of our noses.

For example does this also mean, that when Canadians are sentenced to death in countries such as in various parts of Asia or the Middle East, where for example people are killed for suspected drug crimes, that Canada will no longer try to intervene on their behalf either? Even the United States would try to help its own citizens elsewhere under such circumstances.

You need to look at the picture first yourself. What this say is because they were convicted in countries with fair and imparital courts, that we then should not fell the need to intervene in the sentences given. Just because your Canadian does not give you the right to break other countries laws and have Canada come to bat for you. Before you break any countries laws you should be ver aware of what the punishments are, and then it is on you to make sure that you do not do anything to get you into trouble. So if they want to fry your butt for something you did in their country, then so be it. One less crook here to syphone off the good will of Canada.

The CPC have done nothing to change anything when it comes to the laws as they stand. They just will not automatically go to bat to have death sentences commuted to life sentences for those who do crimes abroad. I also think we should not be so willing to have prisoners brought home to Canada for their sentences to be served here. People need to be made more responsible for what they do in foreign lands.

[capricorn]

For example does this also mean, that when Canadians are sentenced to death in countries such as in various parts of Asia or the Middle East, where for example people are killed for suspected drug crimes, that Canada will no longer try to intervene on their behalf either? Even the United States would try to help its own citizens elsewhere under such circumstances.

Not at all. Canada stands up for citizens held by undemocratic countries where human rights are not respected or where there is no rule of law.

In Smith's case, he lured and brutally murdered two young American men. He committed the crimes in the US, received a fair trial and exhausted all appeals. Another piece of the big picture is that the Governor of Montana does not want to release Smith into Canadian hands because he fears that with our lax justice system, Smith may one day go free. I share his fear.

[bk59]

The tories are not 'bringing back the death penalty' anywhere, they are simply not going to go to bat for convicted murderers.

Actually what is happening is that they are not going to bat for Canadian citizens facing a punishment that is against the law in Canada. And that is a problem. If we believe the death penalty is unacceptable then it is unacceptable to let our citizens face this punishment.

I bet Foreign Affairs bureaucrats are in a real snit because they were given a message that they don't control government policy. They obviously jumped the gun on announcing they would plead Smith's case as reported in this Oct. 27 article.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....422&k=39442

...

Why didn't those bureaucrats give a heads up to powers that be that this matter was to become an issue? There's only one answer. They think they're still running the show.

That is nonsense. They didn't jump the gun. The previous policy was to seek clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty. Government employees would follow that policy until it was changed. Why didn't they give a heads up? Because government is slow enough as it is without every single bureaucrat going to his or her boss every time they need to do something. They should follow the policy in place until that policy changes. They do not need to check with the Minister every time they want to follow a policy just to see if it is still in effect. Everyone has much better things to do with their time.

[Rue]

I wonder how they will reconcile refusing to send an American back who faces the death penalty with not going to bat for a Canadian who faces it.

Simple its called the sovereignty doctrine.

[Rue]

Actually what is happening is that they are not going to bat for Canadian citizens facing a punishment that is against the law in Canada. And that is a problem. If we believe the death penalty is unacceptable then it is unacceptable to let our citizens face this punishment.

That is nonsense. They didn't jump the gun. The previous policy was to seek clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty. Government employees would follow that policy until it was changed. Why didn't they give a heads up? Because government is slow enough as it is without every single bureaucrat going to his or her boss every time they need to do something. They should follow the policy in place until that policy changes. They do not need to check with the Minister every time they want to follow a policy just to see if it is still in effect. Everyone has much better things to do with their time.

I appreciate your arguement for consistency based on a moral principle. I do. I just think its unrealistic givenm the doctrine of sovereignty. I appreciate your aguement to maintain consistency. It is based on logic. Mine is not. I concede that. I just think its one thing to say make a statenment, but I am not sure how much further you go and morally it is possible to make relative arguements as to when to apply it.

I appreciate your idealism on this one. I am afraid I am a cynic on this one. I defer to your idealism. Its harder to be an idealist when debating this issue.

[Wilber]

Simple its called the sovereignty doctrine.

The US has no obligation to pay any attention to our government's interventions on behalf of Canadians facing the death penalty in the US. I'm just wondering how our government will rationalize it the next time our law forces them to got to bat for an American citizen when they won't do it for a Canadian facing the same penalty in the same place for the same crime.

[capricorn]

The previous policy was to seek clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty. Government employees would follow that policy until it was changed. Why didn't they give a heads up? Because government is slow enough as it is without every single bureaucrat going to his or her boss every time they need to do something. They should follow the policy in place until that policy changes. They do not need to check with the Minister every time they want to follow a policy just to see if it is still in effect. Everyone has much better things to do with their time.

Every competent Deputy Minister (or equivalent) who lives through a change in government has the duty to know the policies of the new government, especially with respect to sensitive issues affecting relations with other countries. If that requires approaching the politicians, so be it. That Deputy Head then channels any changes and information down to his subordinates.

If government bureaucracy is slow at the Deputy Head level, that Deputy Head should be removed for incompetence.

Edited November 1, 2007 by capricorn

[ScottSA]

"(We must) expose for Canadians the ideological bent of this party, which is an eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth mentality. That's completely inconsistent with where Canadians have been on this issue."

This has been the Liberal game for some time; attempting to frame the debate by appeal to some mythical "Canadian" value they pull out of a hat, check against Liberal policy, and toss out as a truism. I sincerely doubt that the majority of Canadians are losing sleep because a sociopathic multi-murderer is going to be put to sleep in a much kinder way than he offed his victims.

[Guest trex]

Every competent Deputy Minister (or equivalent) who lives through a change in government has the duty to know the policies of the new government, especially with respect to sensitive issues affecting relations with other countries.

That sounds totally disfunctional. How do they even know where to draw the line, on policies that have been in place for decades. The new government has to announce its changes, not the employees figure it out by mind-reading or asking for validity on their every move... silly excuse.

This, is not a question of whether a Canadian is guilty, as the murderer in the Montana, but our attitude towards capital punishment. If we are against it, we're aganst it no matter what or where it takes place. And our obligation is to complain to those countries, places like Phillipines where death sentences are mandatory for drug crimes, even marijuana possession. Our government is obligated to try and fight for their lives to be spared, regardless of whether those countries will cooperate, or have ever cooperated before.

And the notion of considering this on a case-by-case basis is dysfunctional too. How is that going to be dne, and who decides it? Certainly it should not be up to the politician, who is a flavour of the month, changes and has an unreliable grasp of the laws, will allow their personal bias and preferences to come in to the decision? Or by Canadian courts? On what evidence? Ridiculous. We either are against it for all of them as policy, or none of them. The decision should certainly not be left up to people like Stockwell Day.

[bk59]

I appreciate your arguement for consistency based on a moral principle. I do. I just think its unrealistic givenm the doctrine of sovereignty. I appreciate your aguement to maintain consistency. It is based on logic. Mine is not. I concede that. I just think its one thing to say make a statenment, but I am not sure how much further you go and morally it is possible to make relative arguements as to when to apply it.

I appreciate your idealism on this one. I am afraid I am a cynic on this one. I defer to your idealism. Its harder to be an idealist when debating this issue.

You are right about the sovereignty issue. The fact is, the US can do what it wants within its own borders. But when it comes to Canadian citizens, I do think that Canada should at least try to discuss the issue with the US. If we believe it is wrong, then we should fight for our citizens. Even if we are doomed to fail.

[bk59]

Every competent Deputy Minister (or equivalent) who lives through a change in government has the duty to know the policies of the new government, especially with respect to sensitive issues affecting relations with other countries. If that requires approaching the politicians, so be it. That Deputy Head then channels any changes and information down to his subordinates.

If government bureaucracy is slow at the Deputy Head level, that Deputy Head should be removed for incompetence.

First of all, this is not a new government. This individual case has clearly been going on for years and I would bet that those government officials have been continuing to ask for clemency ever since the Conservatives got their minority. And I'm guessing that there was no policy change until now.

It is up to the government to tell the bureaucracy what policies are changing. There is no point in having the government grind to a halt for a few months while a new government decides the policy for purchasing pens. After an election where a new government is formed, there would be some obvious changes in policy. But aside from those obvious changes, the bureaucracy does not need to stop what it is doing.

[bk59]

This has been the Liberal game for some time; attempting to frame the debate by appeal to some mythical "Canadian" value they pull out of a hat, check against Liberal policy, and toss out as a truism. I sincerely doubt that the majority of Canadians are losing sleep because a sociopathic multi-murderer is going to be put to sleep in a much kinder way than he offed his victims.

In this case, given that capital punishment has been abolished in Canada, I think it is safe to say that Canadians do not support capital punishment. The majority of Canadians may not sympathize with a murderer. But I think Canadians should be concerned when their government says that they will selectively choose which of our citizens they will fight for. Or when they selectively decide which values deserve to be promoted on the world stage. Particularly when it seems hypocritical to take that position.

[maldon_road]

Actually what is happening is that they are not going to bat for Canadian citizens facing a punishment that is against the law in Canada. And that is a problem. If we believe the death penalty is unacceptable then it is unacceptable to let our citizens face this punishment.

You think we have the right to impose our laws on a foreign country? In this example, the crime was not committed in Canada.

[Michael Bluth]

Executions ..... in other people's streets ..... we're not making this up.

[bk59]

You think we have the right to impose our laws on a foreign country? In this example, the crime was not committed in Canada.

First, we are not imposing our laws on the US in this case. We are asking them for clemency because the person in question is a Canadian citizen and Canada has abolished the death penalty. No one is going in there to physically prevent this person from being executed.

Also, Canada and many other countries do impose their laws all the time. When a country asks Canada to extradite someone, Canada first makes sure that the crime the person is charged with is actually a crime in Canada. So if a country demands that John Doe be extradited for committing the crime of whistling while walking down the street, Canada is not going to extradite him. While it is nice to take this stand of "we don't have the right to impose on anyone else" the fact is we do this. Constantly. Because no (or at least very few) Canadians are going to let people be shipped off to serve jail time or worse for actions that we don't even believe are criminal. Even if those "crimes" were committed outside of Canada. And other countries do the same.